I have rebutted my critics numerous times, you simply reject my assessments.
No, you don't rebut. You disagree, but don't rebut. Rebuttal is a specific type of disagreement. It involves giving a counterargument to a claim or an argument that attempts to show why the rebutted comment cannot be correct. Answers like, "That's just your opinion" or "It's evidence to me" are not rebuttals, but bare dissent. When I outline a list of logical possibilities longer than yours, which contained only two, and tell that you make a logical error dropping the entries I provided and the only one you named without giving a justification for doing that, a rebuttal is a statement of why you didn't do those things, or an argument why they are appropriate - something that if correct, makes the statement wrong if you are correct. And so, my comment stands unrebutted. Until somebody successfully rebuts it, I have no choice but to consider it correct. It seems correct to me, and you haven't shown otherwise.
You just demonstrated just how arrogant you are by identifying yourself as part of the “chorus of skilled critical thinkers.”
Actually, you did that. I wrote, "The fact that you can't understand what is being told you is on you, not the chorus of skilled critical thinkers singing in unison that your reasoning is faulty." I agree that you should suspect that I consider myself one of that group, and if asked I would tell you that I do. But the fact is that I humbly referred to that group without mention of myself, you converted it to me boasting, and called me arrogant for an opinion humbly not expressed.
Why would it matter even if everyone on this forum believed my reasoning is faulty?
I can tell you why it would matter to me. I am aware that there is a process that generates correct ideas, and I recognize that many others do this, as do I. I can make a mistake. If I do, I wouldn't be surprised to see several people competent in that thinking process disagree with me. So, if and when that happens, I take note and reexamine my own thinking, usually through dialectic with other critical thinkers.
How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is
the fallacy of argumentum ad populum
You misunderstand the fallacy. I am not saying that you are wrong because so many people say so. I say that you are wrong because I can identify errors in your thinking, like this one. I also say that as the number of competent critical thinkers that agree with assessment grows, it makes it more likely that you are wrong, and that that should give you reason to question your thinking. So notice, it is not because of consensus that I reject your thinking, which would be the ad populum fallacy, but because I can see it flaws myself.
I did not drop anything from your list of logical reasons. I committed no logical error unless you can show that I committed logical fallacies.
I have shown everybody else. You gave me your list of two. I expanded it to several others. You were back to two almost immediately without rebuttal of the extra element you dropped again, and then you went on to drop one of your two without rebuttal to the idea that a logical explanation for why we have only unpersuasive (to the critical thinker) messages and no better evidence for a deity is that no such deity exists. To me, that's plain, clear and simple: "Here's my list, here's yours, where did the difference go to on your list?" No answer better than the one above.
Do you not see the logical error in saying, "I committed no logical error unless you can show that I committed logical fallacies"? Rhetorical question.
I have a certain religious belief and you have a personal opinion which differs from my belief. It is as simple as that.
That's not our area of disagreement, so it is not as simple as that. Were it as simple as that, there'd be nothing to discuss. I don't mind that your beliefs are different from mine, nor that you come to them by a different method. My objections are to your claims that your beliefs are based in reason, and also your idea of what constitutes arrogance.
We did this before you and I, when you were defending either naturopathy or homeopathy - I've forgotten which one you advocate. I wouldn't have even commented to you on that until you identified it as superior to mainstream medicine. That's misinformation that I chose to rebut, and once again, you took the huffy attitude that that's just my opinion and that I was arrogant to hold such a position. Really? I'm a retired physician.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as alternative medicine. If a proposed remedy is efficacious, it's medicine. If not, it's placebo or toxin.
